Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's not that upper class kids are, on an individual basis, bad at sports, that's neither necessary nor sufficient for the argument.
It's that people recognize, implicitly, the various advantages from playing sports, but individual kids aren't all good enough to play at a high level. Playing sports in an academic setting is good, has numerous social and physical and credentialist benefits. It's good for your body, your mind, your ego, your social life. But if you can't make the team in high school or college, you often don't even get to play, and even if you do play casually you're strictly inferior to the players on the varsity squad.
College quidditch (and rock climbing and historically lacrosse and ultimate frisbee etc...) is the lindy form of college athletics: a bunch of students forming a club and creating rules to hang out and play sports, and eventually organizing games against other schools until it builds enough to be a real tournament sport.
It's finding an outlet to express your athleticism when the ordinary forms of athletics that already exist are closed to you.
Agreed. The first wording could be taken as rich kids are bad at sports. But it’s more like rich kids just invent new games when their not in the 1% good enough to play the big games.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link